CHAIRPERSON: Shall we try again Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: ...[inaudible]
MR SIBANYONI: Your full names please?
JOHAN HENDRIK LE ROUX: (sworn states)
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The witness is Johan Hendrik le Roux. His application in appears in volume 2 at page 131.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]
MR VISSER: Certainly Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: 131?
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: 131. I draw your attention Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, to the fact that there is a covering letter starting at page 125 also originating from this particular witness. We are not going to refer to it, it is there for you to read Mr Chairman, it's part of the application. It's a cover letter which was directed to the Chairman of the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town in December 1996. We will not be referring to that in detail Mr Chairman.
General le Roux, you are an applicant and you are asking the Committee to grant you amnesty for any unlawful acts or delicts which might have been committed by you or any omissions committed by you connected with an explosion at a theatre in the Highgate Shopping Centre at Roodepoort on the 29th of July 1988, is that true?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes.
MR VISSER: That explosion was in connection with the showing of a film by the name of Cry Freedom?
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You filed an application which is contained in Volume 2, page 131 to 136. Do you confirm the truth and correctness to the best of your knowledge of the contents of that document and do you ask that be incorporated into your evidence?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes.
MR VISSER: You also ask that the evidence which was submitted by way of Exhibits P45, 46 and 47, I'm not going to repeat what they all are, that these are also incorporated into your testimony in light of the fact that you agree with that and you confirm that?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes.
MR VISSER: General, you were born in Potchefstroom and you went to school in Vereeniging. You come from a conservative home and background. You joined the South African Police and your career in the police is summed up on page 127? I think that's correct, yes indeed, page 127 and that is in the covering letter which you drafted and addressed to the Chairperson of the Committee?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents of that letter from page 125 to 130 of Volume 2 as true and correct?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes, I confirm it.
MR VISSER: General, if we could then turn to the Cry Freedom issue. Could you tell the Committee - Mr Chairman, that is at page 132 of Volume 2.
Could you tell the Committee the facts regarding this matter?
GEN LE ROUX: Chairperson, the film Cry Freedom was a film on the life of Steve Biko. General Jaap Joubert of head office phoned me and gave me the order to prevent the showing of the film by means of controlled explosions. There was not sufficient legal base on which to prevent the showing of the film?
MR VISSER: Yes, we know that the legal methods were actually exhausted at that stage.
GEN LE ROUX: Yes. My own view was that the showing of the film would cause the revolutionary climate in the Republic to escalate, dangerously so, and I immediately agreed with this proposed unlawful action.
The judgement of mine must be seen in the context of the situation of unrest, violence, mass demonstrations and ungovernability which reigned at that time. The revolutionary climate could reach a climax with catastrophic consequences.
MR VISSER: General, you listened to the evidence of former Minister Vlok and General van der Merwe regarding the revolutionary climate and the surrounding political circumstances at the time, that is now in 1988. Do you associate yourself with that evidence as also constituting your views and opinions of the time?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes, I think so. If there should be bomb threats, the people showing the film would perhaps become aware of possible problems which could have resulted and that would possibly have caused them not to show the movie.
MR VISSER: So what you're saying is that your conduct or action, the action which was suggested, it was not clear that it would have the desired effect but that was what was envisaged? That is what you tried or thought that you would effect?
GEN LE ROUX: Correct.
MR VISSER: You were at that stage a Colonel and also the Divisional Commander of the West Rand Security Police?
GEN LE ROUX: Correct.
MR VISSER: Were you in Krugersdorp or Randfontein?
GEN LE ROUX: I was in Krugersdorp.
MR VISSER: When you received the order from General Joubert and agreed for it and said that you would carry it out, what did you do thereafter?
GEN LE ROUX: I can't remember this Louw's rank, JCWK Louw, he was an explosives expert on my staff and I ordered him to come and see me. He made arrangements with Lieutenant C Heineke who was also an explosives expert, and they both came to my office to come and talk to me.
I told them that the order in respect of bomb threats come from head office and my discussion with them included the following: namely, that the showing of the film should be stopped, that they should use a harmless copy of an explosive device which would not endanger life or property and that they should plant this device, that telephone calls should be made on the pretext that it was from right-wing groups and that these telephone calls should convey warnings to the theatre group and that when the police were called, the police would then dispose of these harmless copies of a bomb, they would be defused.
MR VISSER: Now you were not involved in the practical execution of this enterprise, did you receive a report as to what happened?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes, that's correct.
MR VISSER: Just tell us brief what was reported to you.
GEN LE ROUX: Louw reported to me that he had put a dummy bomb in a toilet in the theatre complex during the morning and Heineke made the phone calls to the manager of the theatre and after that somebody phoned the police. It was also reported that Heineke then went to the scene and he found this counterfeit harmless bomb and he "defused" it. After that I also went to the scene myself.
MR VISSER: What did you find there?
GEN LE ROUX: That this counterfeit explosive device which I could say was one which was taken from an exhibition board used during presentations to the public. He took this harmless device to a parking area behind the theatre where delivery vans made their deliveries and he buried it in a heap of sand and then detonated it by means of a thunder flash.
MR VISSER: You're saying a notice board, you're talking about a notice board. Is it true that at this time in the country there were often in public notice boards and it was the intention that the members of the public should take note as to what explosive devices looked like so they would be able to recognise these if they should come across it?
GEN LE ROUX: That's correct. What he also did was the following: in busy times we also held lectures in shopping centres so that people could be made aware of explosive devices.
MR VISSER: Now when you refer to a bomb which was made from one of these notice board bombs, was this what you're referring to? Was this cut out and then planted?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes.
MR VISSER: So what must be inferred from your evidence is that there was no danger whatsoever for any life or property involved in this operation for which you gave the authorisation?
GEN LE ROUX: That's correct.
MR VISSER: And the thunder flash which you are mentioning, that is a device which explodes and burns and it is classified by law or in terms of the Act on explosives as an explosive or is it something else, I'm not quite sure. It is an explosive device I think.
GEN LE ROUX: Chairperson, I myself am not an explosives expert but that is what I believe. I've been told that it is an explosive device.
MR VISSER: But that in itself also does not pose any risk to life or limb or property?
GEN LE ROUX: That's correct.
ADV DE JAGER: What offence are you actually asking amnesty for?
GEN LE ROUX: There was a bomb threat made and if you look at the total picture of explosions which took place in this whole series of Cry Freedom explosion, it's very clear that in many cases although in it this particular case, that damage was caused. In this particular instance Chairperson, the damage was extremely limited. There was conceivably a risk of injury as a result of the thunder flash device being used but that risk was negligible and to the extent that there was a collusion that ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: So we're talking about a bomb threat? Right.
MR VISSER: Yes, and everything which followed subsequently because for instance there was a cover-up of the whole operation. So there were a couple of unlawful acts here or delicts ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: And also false implication of right-wingers?
MR VISSER: That is also so. The General will also tell you now that the attempt was so successful that the showing of the films did not proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Are thunder flashes the things that are sometimes used at Guy Fawkes, fireworks?
MR VISSER: It's not entirely the same thing. It works on the same principle I understand but this is not entirely the same thing. This is a little more potent.
CHAIRPERSON: It is something that merely makes an explosion which causes light and noise?
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. I'm similarly also not an expert ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: I think there was a nod from behind you.
MR VISSER: My attorney - I need to tell you that if it goes off in your hand of course it's going to injure you, we know that. But what the real effect is Mr Chairman, I'm afraid I'm not qualified. If it's of interest to you we could ask someone and I can tell you later.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it's just to confirm what the witness has said, it was something that is not used ordinarily in the sense of what one uses explosives for.
MR VISSER: I think that would be the correct description Mr Chairman.
What was the result of this whole operation General, was the showing of the film continued with?
GEN LE ROUX: No, the show was stopped.
MR VISSER: A docket was opened, is that correct?
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct, yes.
MR VISSER: And this docket was marked: "Untraceable - Finalised"?
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct.
MR VISSER: General, Louw and Heineke, are you aware of whether they also applied for amnesty?
GEN LE ROUX: Both applied for amnesty for the same incident.
MR VISSER: And they will testify as to the practical issues and their role in the incident?
GEN LE ROUX: That's correct.
MR VISSER: You've testified that you received this order and you carried out and you also testified that you agreed with it?
GEN LE ROUX: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Your political motives of objectives associated with your action, that you explain in Volume 2 from page 133, is that correct?
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, hasn't he really already dealt with this in his evidence, that he has told us that there was no legal basis to stop this but he believed that in the revolutionary climate that existed in the country at the time if they were allowed to proceed with this it might have caused all sorts of problems?
MR VISSER: Indeed Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]
MR VISSER: I'm sorry for having interrupted Mr Chairman. No, I wasn't going to lead evidence, I'm simply going to refer him to those pages for your benefit.
ADV DE JAGER: But he's already confirmed the whole application so we will be repeating the same thing.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further evidence to lead.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR HUGO: It's Hugo on behalf of Mr de Kock. I have no questions Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
MR BOOYENS: Booyens Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius on behalf of the applicant NJ Vermeulen. My client is not involved, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Christo Nel, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
MR DU PLESSIS: Roelof du Plessis, I've got no questions Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR BOTHA: Hannes Botha, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
MR POLSEN: Graham Polsen Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR POLSEN
MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw Mr Chairman, I also have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
MR LAMEY: Lamey, Mr Chairman, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
MR JANSEN: Jansen on behalf of Ras, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
MR RADITAPOLE: Raditapole, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR RADITAPOLE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Mpshe, some questions.
Mr le Roux, will I be correct to conclude that you accepted the order or the instruction to do what you did on the basis of what you believed in and on the basis of what you have mentioned on page 133, 10 (a) of your application? That will be under:
"Political Object"
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: Will it further be correct that Steve Biko was not a member of the ANC, neither was he in any way aligned to the ANC?
GEN LE ROUX: I stand to be correct but I don't think he was a member of the ANC.
ADV MPSHE: Neither was he in any way aligned to the ANC?
GEN LE ROUX: As far as I know he was not.
ADV MPSHE: Good. Now how do you relate the first paragraph under 10(a) to film Cry Freedom or particular to the life of Steve Biko? I will read to you what you say here in paragraph 1, for convenience
"The political objective which I wanted to achieve was to maintain the previous government and constitutional order at all costs. We wanted to maintain it and to protect it so that the community would not as a result of intimidation and fear lose confidence in the government"
The important thing comes now:
"This amounted to the averting of the onslaught from the ANC/SACP Alliance"
How is it related to Steve Biko?
GEN LE ROUX: Chairperson, this is a statement which was of general application. The film would not only have been viewed by people of the black forces, it would have been seen by the broader public and there was a massive onslaught against the government at the time. So it could have been, it could have had an over-arching general effect.
ADV MPSHE: If we restrict your political "oogmerk" and in fact we have to do that, we're restricted to the Cry Freedom incident, then this would not be applicable, am I correct?
GEN LE ROUX: I still stand by what I said, namely that the film would have been seen by everybody and that would have had the consequences which we tried to prevent.
CHAIRPERSON: It was the film that would have upset people, not Steve Biko?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes, that is so.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, it is the film that would have upset the people but in your paragraph the target actually here is the ANC/SACP Alliance and you acted on instruction because you believed in this particular thing, that you're fighting the ANC and SACP and Steve Biko was neither of these parties, he was BCM.
GEN LE ROUX: That is so. Once again I must say that at that stage the onslaught came largely from the ANC/SACP Alliance.
ADV MPSHE: In your studies, because you mentioned on page 135 of your application that you did attend security courses, in your courses did you ever learn that BCM was also involved in communistic espionage?
GEN LE ROUX: No, as far as my knowledge goes and my recollection, no.
ADV MPSHE: Would I then be correct that the showing of the film pertaining to the life of Steve Biko would have nothing to do at all with communism or advancement thereof?
GEN LE ROUX: No, definitely not but it would have exacerbated the revolutionary climate and that is why we wanted to prevent it.
ADV MPSHE: Just a moment for me Mr Chairman.
Did you see the film?
GEN LE ROUX: I didn't see it, no.
ADV MPSHE: And you believed that it would have cause a revolutionary climate? Even if you did not see it, you were told about it. Is that what happened?
GEN LE ROUX: Chairperson, head office had a very definite view on this matter and which I agreed with. The mere fact that the name of a film was: "Cry Freedom", in my view even though I wasn't an expert, was aimed at escalating the revolutionary climate in the country.
ADV MPSHE: It is what you think could have been in the film.
GEN LE ROUX: That is what I believed.
ADV MPSHE: Perhaps let me be direct with you on this issue of communistic espionage, how - sorry, I hear a remark, what is the remark? I can respond to it.
MR VISSER: I responded to my attorney's question to me, it's not a remark.
ADV MPSHE: Oh, I see, I see. In what way would the show of this film indicate or show any communistic espionage?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, where is communistic espionage mentioned in the application ...[intervention]
ADV MPSHE: Paragraph 2, under 10(a) Mr Chairman. I will read for convenience
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE
"It was especially necessary to, in respect of the threat posed by the communist expansionism, to fight this"
MR VISSER: That's not espionage Mr Chairman, with respect.
ADV MPSHE: Alright. Communistic expansionism then. It's still the same. My questions still stands.
GEN LE ROUX: Chairperson, communist expansionism was a global trend at the time, it was spreading across the globe and that is what specifically fought against in that time.
ADV MPSHE: Was it spread by the ANC and its allies?
GEN LE ROUX: Yes, that's correct.
ADV MPSHE: And not by the BCM?
GEN LE ROUX: No.
ADV MPSHE: That's all Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
CHAIRPERSON: You were asked whether the film dealt with the life of Steve Biko, did it also deal with his death?
GEN LE ROUX: I didn't see the film myself so I can't comment on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR VISSER: None, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
ADV DE JAGER: We've heard evidence as to how Shirley Gunn was innocently involved and implicated to cover an act committed by the police. Here you've testified that right-wingers were also involved in order to cover up an act committed by the police.
GEN LE ROUX: That is correct Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Were there any grounds for that accusation at the time?
GEN LE ROUX: All that I can imagine is that that was just a handy excuse for us at the time.
MR SIBANYONI: Mr le Roux, did you personally make any telephone threat as if it was from the right-wing?
GEN LE ROUX: No.
ADV MPSHE: Who made those telephone calls?
GEN LE ROUX: I think it was Heineke.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
